Estimation of functional connectivity from electromagnetic signals and the amount of empirical data required

An increasing number of neuroimaging studies are concerned with the identification of interactions or statistical dependencies between brain areas. Dependencies between the activities of different brain regions can be quantified with functional connectivity measures such as the cross-correlation coefficient. An important factor limiting the accuracy of such measures is the amount of empirical data available. For event-related protocols, the amount of data also affects the temporal resolution of the analysis. We use analytical expressions to calculate the amount of empirical data needed to establish whether a certain level of dependency is significant when the time series are autocorrelated, as is the case for biological signals. These analytical results are then contrasted with estimates from simulations based on real data recorded with magnetoencephalography during a resting-state paradigm and during the presentation of visual stimuli. Results indicate that, for broadband signals, 50-100 s of data is required to detect a true underlying cross-correlations coefficient of 0.05. This corresponds to a resolution of a few hundred milliseconds for typical event-related recordings. The required time window increases for narrow band signals as frequency decreases. For instance, approximately 3 times as much data is necessary for signals in the alpha band. Important implications can be derived for the design and interpretation of experiments to characterize weak interactions, which are potentially important for brain processing.

[1]  Darren Price,et al.  Investigating the electrophysiological basis of resting state networks using magnetoencephalography , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  G. Barnes,et al.  Statistical flattening of MEG beamformer images , 2003, Human brain mapping.

[3]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[4]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Evaluation of different measures of functional connectivity using a neural mass model , 2004, NeuroImage.

[5]  P. Clifford,et al.  Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes , 1993 .

[6]  Stephan Moratti,et al.  Prefrontal-Occipitoparietal Coupling Underlies Late Latency Human Neuronal Responses to Emotion , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  Theiler,et al.  Generating surrogate data for time series with several simultaneously measured variables. , 1994, Physical review letters.

[8]  Rodrigo Quian Quiroga,et al.  Nonlinear multivariate analysis of neurophysiological signals , 2005, Progress in Neurobiology.

[9]  D Hémon,et al.  Assessing the significance of the correlation between two spatial processes. , 1989, Biometrics.

[10]  J. Vrba,et al.  Signal processing in magnetoencephalography. , 2001, Methods.

[11]  W. Drongelen,et al.  Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  M-X Huang,et al.  Commonalities and Differences Among Vectorized Beamformers in Electromagnetic Source Imaging , 2003, Brain Topography.

[13]  Karl J. Friston Functional and effective connectivity in neuroimaging: A synthesis , 1994 .

[14]  Jos J. Eggermont,et al.  Neural connectivity only accounts for a small part of neural correlation in auditory cortex , 1996, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..